Home » Posts tagged 'Environment' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Environment
Cancers Today From Radiation Releases by US Gov’t in 1950’s?
The following is a partial repost of an article to be found in Robert Parry’s Consortiumnews.com web site. This is an excellent site to read investigative jouralism. The article was written by John LaForge who works for Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog group in Wisconsin. He also edits its Quarterly newsletter, and is syndicated through PeaceVoice.
Reaping the Seeds of Nuke Tests
The warnings about fallout from nuclear tests six decades ago often noted that cancers from the radiation would probably not begin appearing in large numbers for many years. But that time is now – and medical experts are wondering whether the surge in some cancers is a result, writes John LaForge.
By John LaForge
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission doused the entire United States with thyroid cancer-causing iodine-131 — and 300 other radioisotopes — by exploding atomic and hydrogen bombs above ground. To protect the dirty, secretive, militarized bomb-building industry, the government chose to warn the photographic film industry about the radioactive fallout patterns, but not the general public.
In 1951, the Eastman Kodak Company had threatened a federal lawsuit over the nuclear fallout that was fogging its bulk film shipments. Film was not packed in bubble wrap then, but in corn stalks that were sometimes being fallout-contaminated.
During nuclear bomb drills in the 1950s, school children were ordered to hide under their desks.
By agreeing to warn Kodak, etc., the AEC and the bomb program avoided the public uproar — and the bomb testing program’s possible cancellation — that a lawsuit would have precipitated. The settlement kept the deadliness of the fallout hidden from farmers and the public, even though the government well knew that fallout endangered all the people it was supposed to be defending.
This staggering revelation was heralded on Sept. 30, 1997, in the New York Times headline, “U.S. Warned Film Plants, Not Public, About Nuclear Fallout.” The article began, “[W]hile the Government reassured the public that there was no health threat from atmospheric nuclear tests…” The fallout’s radioactive iodine-131 delivered thyroid doses to virtually all 160 million people in the U.S. at the time. Continue reading here: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/28/reaping-the-seeds-of-nuke-tests/
A Brief Conversation on Salvation and Ecology
Premise: Until Christianity (and other major religions) views salvation as more than a personal journey the Earth and all future generations will be condemned by those who ignore or contribute to environmental degradation. From almost any spiritual perspective, the Earth is sacred, yet how we treat it is profane. In my view, the outcome of personal salvation is death, both spiritually and literally, if a person does not atone for environmental sins and alter their relationship to the Earth. All the major religions of the world should be rushing towards achieving a sustainable relationship with nature.
The following is a brief twitter exchange between this author and “C” a Christian for whom Jesus is Central to his life. We can’t be afraid to talk about religion and the environment regardless of our personal beliefs or religious affiliations. The fate of the planet may depend our ability to communicate across religious and cultural boundaries. Start here. Share your thoughts and ideas then start a conversation on your own blog. Time is of the essence.
C: Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say, Rejoice! Phil 4:4
B: God created the Earth, pronounced it good, so we should rejoice in the Earth from which we’re made also. What do you think?
C: If by rejoice in the earth you mean to thank God for His gifts and to cherish them and use them responsibly, then yes, I agree
B: We attend to our relationship to God and each other but ignore our relationship to the rest of creation. Doesn’t seem right. God so loved his creation, even before man, that he proclaimed it good, but Christians today seem so estranged from the Earth. If you love God and your neighbors yet poison the stream behind your house how can you expect to be welcomed into heaven?
C: Well, our welcome into heaven depends on our relationship with Jesus Christ, but I hear what you are saying
B: Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, they are the same, they are the One, right? We don’t have separate relationships with each. I just don’t see how someone can harm the Earth yet be right with God. Why isn’t this a bigger part of salvation theology? Is degrading the environment a sin? If so, where is our atonement? If not then does God not care about his creation? In short, why aren’t Christians leading the environmental movement? I don’t understand.
C: It does not matter if it is a sin or not. We will not be judged on the basis of our sin or relative righteousness…. Jesus died on the cross to reconcile sinful Man to a Holy and Just God. If being sinless was our responsibility to salvation, then we would all die separate from God. The question is then, what will you do with Jesus?
B: Accept Jesus and He saves you from sin and separation. But don’t we have to change our ways? Can’t keep sinning, right? If salvation through Jesus means turning away from sin, we still have to know what is unacceptable to God. We have choices. Therefore it does matter if degrading the environment is a sin. I tend to take this question literally via Matthew 7:16.
B: From a Biblical perspective the catastrophic impacts of climate change is the wrath of God for ignoring or abusing his creation.
[Day 2]
C: God judges based only on our relationship with Jesus, not sin, not environmental responsibility, just Jesus
B: Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit all being one makes your statement confusing.
C: One God, but 3 distinct and eternally separate persons, and yes, it is confusing to our limited minds
B: True, but the particle wave nature of light provides at least some analogy for understanding the trinity. How might God judge if you accepted Jesus in your heart on Sunday and dumped toxins into the river on Monday? We must change!
C: Read Phil 3:3-8. Our righteousness is rubbish (“dung” in the KJV) in the eyes of God. It is not what we do, but what He has done.
B: Three lines later verse12: “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own…”
B: My larger point is that what Christian’s do or fail to do in this world after they are saved matters in the final judgment. You can’t affirm life in the hereafter if you are not life affirming here and now. The Christian communities should be on the front lines of environmental protection. If we condemn all life on Earth we are ourselves condemned, here and in the hereafter. This is an urgent spiritual matter.
Principles Involved in Keystone XL Pipeline Decision
The following is an exchange between Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey and me regarding the Keystone pipeline. Below is my response to his initial constituent letter (further below). I don’t know if this is of interest or value to readers of this blog, but I encourage everyone to be vigilant and vocal regarding this issue in the comming months. Thank you.
Dear Senator Menendez,
I thank you and your staff for getting back to me regarding my concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline. I needed to respond to what I read as an equivocal response to my concerns.
In general, the choices we make are good to the extent that they improve our future options and support the imperatives of life. Jobs today in exchange for environmental degradation lasting over a millennium is a Faustian bargain. Developing the Canadian tar sands is a bad, short term profit driven idea. The energy the planet will derive is minimal while the harm it will cause is measurable and will degrade life for generations to come.
But that decision is not in our nations hands. The only issue for us is how to minimize the environmental impact of transporting tar sands through the US. In this regard, a “black swan” analysis is the best measure in my view. Given enough time, our worst case scenarios always under estimate the actual impact of worst case events.
Therefore, any transportation options that would limit the volume of future releases of tar sands into the environment and confine spills to our Earth’ surface are far preferable to the pipe line where far greater volumes of subterranean releases are possible. I ask you and your staff to keep this in mind when evaluating the final environmental impact study and in considering how you ultimately decide.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this message.
Brian Lynch
Here is Senator Menendez’ original response to my concerns:
Dear Mr. Lynch:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the proposed Canadian tar sands oil pipeline. Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this critical issue.
I share your concerns about the environmental impact of tar sands and of the Keystone XL pipeline. That is why I joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the State Department requesting answers to a number of questions about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement the State Department had produced for the pipeline proposal. The letter raised concerns about the environmental degradation caused by oil extraction, greenhouse gas emissions, and the risks associated with transporting oil through the United States. My concerns led me to vote against a proposal to circumvent the permitting process and build the pipeline without proper review. However, I have also heard from proponents of the pipeline who have emphasized the jobs that will be created by the project, as well as its possible energy security benefits.
As you know, the Obama Administration has delayed a decision on the pipeline pending a review of alternate routes. On March 1st, the State Department issued a draft environmental review of the Keystone XL project that evaluated other methods of transporting the oil, such as trucks, barges and two train options. The report determined that all options would carry environmental risk, and that the train options would actually release more greenhouse gases than the proposed pipeline. The State Department’s report concludes that “(a)pproval or denial of the proposed project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands.” Following this draft report, there will be a 45-day comment period, followed by a final environmental report and a recommendation from the Secretary of State as to whether the Keystone pipeline is in the national interest.
Ensuring that we are making smart choices about our nation’s energy future and protecting the health and safety of Americans are two of my top priorities. Please rest assured that, in my position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will keep your views in mind as I closely monitor this ongoing situation.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance. I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.
Clearing the Air – We’ve Made Progress in Fighting Pollution
Government regulation is so demonized today in part because it is a victim of its own success. Who needs air pollution standards when skies are blue and the air smells sweet? Aren’t federal government regulations just a drag on the economy? As progress is made in cleaning up the air we breath, push back to dismantle the regulations that have been working becomes greater sometimes. The same powers of industry that created unbearable air quality in the past are pressuring Congress today to ease up on clean air emissions standards. We must hold the line and, in fact, move forward with improved standards.
What Pittsburgh Looked Like When It Decided It Had a Pollution Problem
In 1941, influenced by a similar policy introduced in St. Louis four years earlier, the city of Pittsburgh passed a law designed to reduce coal production in pursuit of cleaner air. Not willing to cripple such an important part of the local economy, it promised to clean the air by using treated local coal. The new policy ended up not being fully enacted until after World War II.
While the idea was a small step in the right direction, other factors ultimately helped improvePittsburgh’s notorious air quality. Natural gas was piped into the city. Regional railroad companies switched from coal to diesel locomotives. And, ultimately, the collapse of the iron and steel production industries in the 1980s led to rapidly improved air quality leading into the 21st century. Control of coal smoke made it possible to clean soot-covered buildings and to re-plant hillsides, helping provide the city a look it could hardly envision in the depths of its industrial heyday.
[excerpt]
The year 1970 has been a year of great progress in this field. In February, you will recall that I submitted the most comprehensive message on the environment ever proposed by a President of the United States. During the year, there have been some administrative actions, some legislative actions.
Time, however, has been required for the Congress to consider the proposals of the administration and, finally, to agree on the legislation that will be sent to the President for signature.
This is the most important piece of legislation, in my opinion, dealing with the problem of clean air that we have this year and the most important in our history.
It provides, as you know, for provisions dealing with fuel emissions and also for air quality standards, and it provides for ‘the additional enforcement procedures which are absolutely important in this particular area.
How did this come about? It came about by the President proposing. It came about by a bipartisan effort represented by the Senators and Congressmen, who are here today, in acting. Senator Randolph, Senator Cooper, and Congressman Springer represent both parties and both Houses of the Congress. [snip]
And if, as we sign this bill in this room, we can look back and say, in the Roosevelt Room on the last day of 1970, we signed a historic piece of legislation that put us far down the road toward a goal that Theodore Roosevelt, 70 years ago, spoke eloquently about: a goal of clean air, clean water, and open spaces for the future generations of America.
Read more at the American Presidency Project:Richard Nixon: Remarks on Signing the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.
Over Population is Key to Understanding Our World
Over population is the elephant in the room than nobody talks about. Take most any crisis we face today, shrink it by 3 or 4 billion people and the problem goes away. Global population has doubled, and just about doubled again in my lifetime. It has fundamentally altered everything. It’s been estimated that there are as many people alive today as have ever lived before. Given our reproductive success as a species, it is easy to forget that population constrain is an unavoidable force of nature. Every species that ever was or ever will be is brought into natures balance. This WILL happen to humans with or without our planning. If we don’t take responsibility for a sustainable world the natural consequence could include human extinction. Natural consequences are seldom humane. Our intelligence has made us successful up till now, but if we don’t apply our ability to reason on this problem we won’t look so smart in the future. (selected reading below)
In the time it takes you to read this post there will be 2,000 more people in the world.
Graph of human population from 10,000 BC – 2,000 AD showing the unprecedented population growth since the 19th century
HERE IS A WORLD POPULATION CLOCK
Work to curb world overpopulation must begin now
Published July 11, 2012
http://www.theolympian.com/2012/07/11/2169964/work-to-curb-world-overpopulation.html
Tuesday morning, the world’s population stood at 7,025,367,636. Some believe that’s already a billion more than the planet can ultimately sustain, but the number is growing annually by 80 million people.
At that rate – about 9,100 new people per hour – the world population increases by roughly the size of Thurston County [Washington State] every day.
This morning, in London, on World Population Day, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation brought world leaders together to kick off a $4 billion fundraising campaign to provide contraceptives for 120 million women who do not have access to birth control, all of them in the poorest countries. [snip]
Overpopulation Problems; Lack of Resources
The World’s New Numbers
by Martin Walker
OVERPOPULATION: A KEY FACTOR IN SPECIES EXTINCTION
As the world’s population grows unsustainably, so do its unyielding demands for water, land, trees and fossil fuels — all of which come at a steep price for already endangered plants and animals. Most biologists agree we’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event; species are disappearing about 1,000 times faster than is typical of the planet’s history. This time, though, it isn’t because of geologic or cosmic forces but unsustainable human population growth.
Today’s global human population is over 7 billion. Every day, the planet sees a net gain of roughly 250,000 people. If the pace continues, we’ll be on course to reach 8 billion by 2020 and 9 billion by 2050.
By any ecological measure, Homo sapiens sapiens has exceeded its sustainable population size. Just a single human waste product — greenhouse gas — has drastically altered the chemistry of the planet’s atmosphere and oceans, causing global warming and ocean acidification.
In the United States, which has the world’s third largest population after China and India, the fertility rate peaked in 2007 at its highest level since 1971 before dropping off slightly due to the recent economic recession. At 2.1 children per woman, the U.S. fertility rate remains the highest among developed nations, which average around 1.6. The current U.S. population exceeds 300 million and is projected to grow 50 percent by 2050.
The mission of the Center for Biological Diversity is to stop the planetary extinction crisis wiping out rare plants and animals around the world. Explosive, unsustainable human population growth is an essential root cause of this crisis.
We can reduce our own population to an ecologically sustainable level in a number of ways, including the empowerment of women, education of all people, universal access to birth control and a societal commitment to ensuring that all species are given a chance to live and thrive. All of these steps will decrease human poverty and overcrowding, raise our standard of living and sustain the lives of plants, animals and ecosystems everywhere.
Where is News of Fukushima Radiation Impact?
DATA DRIVEN VIEWPOINT: Sometimes the big news stories can only be seen by the shadows that they cast. You would think that it would be easy to find copious updates on the radiation impact Fukushima is having on the fishing industry, US food production, global radiation distribution, etc. You would be mistaken. The relatively large amount of media coverage the Fukushima disaster initially generated has diminished to the point of near silence. Maybe my own internet search skills are to blame, but even having to run a search on Fukushima’s radioactive legacy for North America is an warning sign to which journalists and the media should be paying attention. There was this month (November, 2012) a scientific study published regarding the release of radiation from Japan, but its focus is primarily on how tracing the travel of radionuclides gives insight into atmospheric air circulation in the Northern Hemisphere.
I would be interested in learning more about what the US and Canadian governments are doing to monitor radiation levels, track distribution rates and study how it may or may not be impacting our food supply. If any of you reading this comes across such information, please post links here to the comments section below. If you search but can’t find information, that is news worth also, so please comment about your efforts also. Thank you.
Science of The Total Environment
Tracking the complete revolution of surface westerlies over Northern Hemisphere using radionuclides emitted from Fukushima
- M.A. Hernández-Ceballosa, G.H. Hongb, R.L. Lozanoa, Y.I. Kimc, H.M. Leeb, S.H. Kimb, S.-W. Yehd, J.P. Bolívara, M. Baskarane
- a Department of Applied Physics, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain
- b Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, Ansan 426–744, South Korea
- c Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, Uljin 767–813, South Korea
- d Department of Environmental Marine Science, Hanyang University, Ansan, 426–791, South Korea
- e Department of Geology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Data Driven Viewpoints 